Leading Light commies seem to try their hardest at proving anarchy/ism ain't the way to go, with their most recent claim being that its utopian, especially when it comes to communes/collectives/co-ops and primitivism. What's everyone's response to this? Personally, even if it is utopian, there's no reason not to strive for utopia, no?

13 Answers

+2 votes

there are two understandings of utopia - one i would call idealist, which is just that everyone is happy all the time (ok, simplification, but for this site it's close enough), and the other (could be called a historical understanding) is of a society where people are *supposed to be* happy all the time (ie a society that is rigidly controlled in the name of the greatest good for all people).

obviously anarchists wouldn't want to be associated with the second (historical) sense of the word. but also many of us are not interested in the idealistic sense of the word either, since there is little evidence that happiness is the most useful or viable indicator for how well a group of people do... but that is a more controversial topic, for sure.

as i see it, the term utopy is remarkably implicit against what i understand as anarchy. i don't have a very deep insight of the history and succession of writings adhered to what could be called utopian in its original sense, but as far as i know u.topos are used to describe a cumulus of critics and proposals that originates a more or less specific and ideal, perfect state of things, thus not admitting additions since the time of its inauguration.
i had also hear a bunch tryings of turn the term in an anti.authoritarian voices that would have been more in touch with my feelings but which i disregarded inasmuch i see them as a blended misapprehension. if it said that utopia is a categorical but latent surrender isn't by denying the struggle against uncertainties in favor of the improbable, but rather making an unremitting differentiation between utopia, the static (and so on) future, in order to ferment oneself's attitude and ability of explore non-(and undesirable of being)stablished *relations*, undestanding this term in its very numerous meanings.
for me, in a deep sense, that accusation is empty of meaning, but as i understand that many self-described anarchists —besides enemies of anarchic behavior and its fruits and havocs, have propagated an utopian vision of anarchy, making them synonymous with subtle nuances, this question works as a levering crowbar making more obvious the differences between anarchism and anarchy.

i like what dot said here, and i would add that i think utpoian is often used in the place of idealist. I think perhaps often when anarchists are called utopian, at least part of the critique is aimed at idealism, that anarchists aspire to "higher" values, and implied in this i think is a proposition as to the content of "human nature", in this case being, that people are "greedy", "mean", "uncaring", "capitalist/authoritarian" by nature.

The critique leveled against anarchist utopianism, though, i think is partially true, because many anarchists i see are "utopian" in the sense that anarchy or communism is something that exists "somewhere else" in the future, not achievable until the glorious revolution wipes away all traces of authority and domination. There are, as i think should be obvious to many people here, proponents of a totally different conception of what anarchy and anarchism are, that it is lived now, that it is a way of being and relating to each other and to the world/society/authority, the former being informed by a set of values that we as individuals establish, the latter being a state of perpetual or permanent conflict against those. Bonnano's "anarchist tension" i think is a really good exploration of these things.

Utopianism sounds to me to be a perfectly regimented society where humans are robot-like in their interactions with each other.

The idealism of Anarchy can appear to be quasi-Utopian, in regards to a world where authoritarianism of individuals over other individuals is viewed as unethical. I do not accept the notion that individuals living their own lives without authoritarians, economic hierarchy/class systems, organized religion, nation-states, and other problems is Utopian.

Also, the Leading Light Communist Organization is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (MLM aka Maoist) group, so they are definitely opposed to Anarchy/Anarchism/Anarchists. Maoists are big into the Cult of Personality (Bob Avakian, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin), which among other things they advocate is inherently anti-Anarchist.

Some endorse the label such as Kropotkin in 'The conquest of bread' however the problem with the label of utopian is that it suggests an impossible goal, I don't believe any form of anarchy is impossible however I do believe some are more feasible than others.

Anarchism for me personally isn't so much about economics. It's about freedom from illegitimate authority such as the state, and freedom from coercion. It's also about voluntary association. Individuals will probably come together and willfully form and join societies which may share their particular values or beliefs on economics, ethics, etc. Some communities may offer a higher standard of living than others and of course there won't be much stopping individuals from leaving these communities and joining more prosperous ones. As long as no one is coerced to live with or under a certain community, that's enough. It won't be "utopian" in the common definition of the word, but it will be free.